Gore, noting stronger storms fueled by climate change, told the paper the hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now theyre adding a 6.

But in fact theres no new scale, the Union of Concerned Scientists representative said on Thursday.

He deserves great praise for these Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning efforts. But unfortunately he recently got it wrong about the science of climate change, wrote UCS's Gretchen Goldman in a blog post Thursday about Gores remarks.

There are no plans by the National Hurricane Centerthe federal office responsible for categorizing storms  to create a new category, she wrote on the environmental groups website.

Her admonishment is gentle, praising Gore for drawing attention to other "important information" about climate change.

[I]t is worth noting that the rest of the interview included accurate and important information and its unfortunate that this blip made its way in, Goldman writes.

But Goldman, an expert in atmospheric science with a PhD from the Georgia Institute of Technology, also injects a note of caution into the debate about climate and storms:

Though there is some evidence that climate change will influence hurricanes, the effect of climate change on hurricane intensity and hurricane frequency is complex and scientists are continuing to study the connection. Hurricanes in the North Atlantic region have been intensifying over the past 40 years but not elsewhere in the world. By contrast, scientists have high confidence that sea level will rise all over the world, and particularly fast in some areas like the East Coast.

Goldmans post covers a lot of ground, so readers can see it all here.

Gore unilaterally changed the hurricane scale in a much wider interview that also veered into the politics of climate change. E2-Wire covered it here.

Heres what he said about the weather:

If you look at superstorm Sandy on October 29th, the ocean water east of New Jersey was nine degrees fahrenheit above average. Thats what put so much more energy into that storm. Thats what put so much more water vapor into that storm. Would there be a storm anyway? Maybe so. Would there be hurricanes and floods and droughts without man-made global warming? Of course. But theyre stronger now. The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now theyre adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.

If you look at superstorm Sandy on October 29th, the ocean water east of New Jersey was nine degrees fahrenheit above average. Thats what put so much more energy into that storm. Thats what put so much more water vapor into that storm. Would there be a storm anyway? Maybe so. Would there be hurricanes and floods and droughts without man-made global warming? Of course. But theyre stronger now. The extreme events are more extreme. The hurricane scale used to be 1-5 and now theyre adding a 6. The fingerprint of man-made global warming is all over these storms and extreme weather events.

Sandy wasn't even technically a hurricane at landfall. And its winds at landfall were low Cat 1. What made Sandy damaging was its size and timing and angle of approach to the coast.

No need for a Cat 6. Heck, we haven't even had a Cat 3 hit the mainland US for years.

The phoniest of all the baloney is this idea of increasing severe weather. I believe it is more the opposite. The only thing that is increasing is the population which places more people in the path of any given severe weather event than in the past.

Anecdotal evidence is always used by the climate change crowd, most of it very contrived evidence. So I shall dish some out the other way.

In 1900, Galveston was largely wiped out by a hurricane and ten thousand people died. Better forecasting today might have reduced that death toll but Galveston would probably still be wiped out (the sea wall they built later was only for half that bad a storm as Ike proved). Conclusion — modern Ike a shadow of the historic storm.

In 1926 and 1928 and again in 1935, Florida was hit by massive killer hurricanes. Hundreds died in each instance. The only comparable storm since then was Andrew in 1992, and a close second from Charley in 2004. Yet the climate change crowd only mention Andrew and Charlie. What’s up with that? (what’s up with that?)

The two worst tornado outbreaks in the past hundred years were in 1925 and 1974. I would stay away from the Ohio valley in 2021 then.

The 1936 heat wave — even worse than 1911. This is actually getting rather brutal, call me off before I hurt somebody.

Rob Sermon says:
August 22, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Please, please post this, Mods A question for all scientists, including those with the UCS

When, in the history of earth, has the climate ever been static? Was it when the Arctic icecap was as far south as Indiana? Ya know, the icecap that formed the Great Lakes, and tens of thousand glacial lakes, that have the best fishing in North America?

Just when was the climate static?
Reply

Nothin’ yet.....

23
posted on 08/22/2013 5:06:59 PM PDT
by SgtBob
(Freedom is not for the faint of heart. Semper Fi!)

Not only that but it can rise in the middle of the Atlantic and fall along the coastline of Africa. Not only can it, it happens every day.

Another interesting fact, on some continents, the sea level 'rises' on one coast while it is 'falling' on the other.

One thing for sure. At no time is the overall sea level making any major move in either direction. All apparent events are localized. On the long scale of geography, it the sea appears to be 'rising', you can be assured that the real thing that happened is that the ground is sinking. It's been going on for billions of years, with 'apparent localized' sea level changes. There are Islands in the Pacific, for instance, that are brand new. volcanoes that have broken the surface. The Islands of Hawaii are of this breed. These islands experience a 'change' in sea level constantly. The level of the sea around them isn't and hasn't changed in any measurable way in millions of years. But the ground, everywhere is constantly on the move, some fast, some slow. Some up, some down.

This is the truth that many do not want to know, that the media isn't interested in bringing up (even though every child is taught the physics of hydraulic displacement and the ability of water to instantly keep it's 'level' by flowing to the lowest point), and that people like Al (my dad was a commie and raped the Earth leaving toxic poisons behind for area inhabitants to deal with) Gore have turned into a fortune by not discussing.

To summarize, yes, yes it is.

(I know your response was sarcasm, and I took advantage of it to remind everyone of some basic truths. )

36
posted on 08/23/2013 5:31:11 AM PDT
by UCANSEE2
(The monsters are due on Maple Street)

I would like an explanation of how sea level is going to increase more in one place than another.

The answer is simple, and obvious. Somehow we have been taught to ignore the obvious.

It is not the sea that rises or falls, it is the ground. This is a well established geological fact. It is a basic principle of science. If you change the surface of the ground around a lake or river, the water will move to seek it's own new level and 'balance'. The idea that the sea level 'rose' is merely a point of view type of thing.

38
posted on 08/23/2013 5:45:57 AM PDT
by UCANSEE2
(The monsters are due on Maple Street)

Unless you are predicting that the moon is going to permanently plant itself over the Northeast,

Well... I guess if you are powerful enough that you promise to keep the 'climate' from ever changing again (given enough funding), then surely you can freeze the Moon in place precisely wherever you want.

: )

40
posted on 08/23/2013 5:50:47 AM PDT
by UCANSEE2
(The monsters are due on Maple Street)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.